We was expeditious, unanimously endorsed, and therefore most heartening. respectfully urge the committee, by reporting out promptly the bill passed by the House, to allow the consumers of the Nation the consideration on the floor of the Senate which they deserve. STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD, NEW YORK CITY FOOD AND NUTRITION COMMITTEE, NEW YORK HEALTH COUNCIL, NEW YORK, N. Y. The planning board of the New York City Food and Nutrition Committee, a division of the New York Health Council, respectfully urges prompt and favorable action by the United States Senate on the Poage bill, H. R. 2023, as approved on April 1 by the House of Representatives. The measure is in the consumer interest. It will free a wholesome and nutritious food product from burdensome and discriminatory taxes, establish adequate consumer safeguards in public eating places, and retain margarine under the stringent labeling and packaging provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. We believe that the Federal antimargarine laws to be contrary to the basic principles of free enterprise, that they thrust an unnecessary burden on the consumer, especially those in low income groups; and that they are entirely without justification. It is clearly apparent to us that butter, a good and wholesome food product, is perfectly capable of competing with margarine on its own merit. Butter is not an inferior product. It does not require an unfair advantage accorded it by artificial restrictions on a competing product. With family and institutional budgets strained to the breaking point by spiraling living costs, there should be given a freedome of selection between the two table spreads. Neither should be unduly penalized. STATEMENT OF REV. WILLIAM H. JERNAGIN, NATIONAL FRATERNAL COUNCIL OF NEGRO CHURCHES, U. S. A. As an official representing the National Fraternal Council of Negro Churches, U. S. A., I urge this committee to endorse H. R. 2023, the Poage bill, which would abolish antimargarine taxes and other unfair restrictions. Our organization wants the antimargarine laws repealed, because their continuation in force is a threat to cotton and soybean farmers, to small grocers, and to consumers. Among the 11 denominations and 6,000,000 members represented by our organization are millions of colored farm people in the southern and border States. They rely heavily on cotton and cottonseed as a major source of income. As you know, margarine provides an important market outlet for cottonseed and soybean oils. I understand that last year, over 400,000,000 pounds of cottonseed oil and nearly 300,000,000 pounds of soybean oil went into the manufacture of margarine. These amounts would be greatly increased by the removal of discriminatory taxes which throttle the production and distribution of margarine. Continued discouragement of margarine consumption is proving a serious handicap to cotton and soybean farmers. With cotton facing stiff competition from rayon, nylon, and other synthetic fibers, cotton byproducts such as cottonseed oil for the manufacture of margarine and other foods are now of vastly increased importance. Other factors which I trust this committee will take into account are the inadequate supply of milk and the deficiency of fats and oils. The per capita consumption of butter and margarine now stands at only 16.3 pounds. The nutritive requirement of fats and oils is double that amount. Assuming that a third comes from other sources, there is still need for about six additional pounds of butter and margarine per capita or an aggregate of close to a billion pounds. As for the shortage of milk, Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan said before congressional committees last week that the American people should be producing and consuming 150,000,000,000 pounds of milk annually, instead of less than 120,000,000,000 pounds as we are doing at present. Therefore the argument that dairy farmers are threatened by increased production of margarine seems without foundation in fact. Increased production of margarine, indirectly, means increased income for cotton farmers. And it means shoes for children to wear to school and to church. I am not the only minister in our council who has witnessed the dire needs of many colored cotton farmers. A large percentage of council membership is made up of ministers who serve rural communities. Their work is directly related to rural welfare. And they know how important the extra cottonseed dollars are to these low-income farmers. Aside from the farmers' needs, more small white and colored merchants ought to have an opportunity to sell margarine in their stores. However, the high license fees make it impractical for many of them to handle this product. And, of course, the housewife's interest also is vitally affected. In order to get this low-cost, nutricious product, she sometimes must walk blocks and blocks to the big stores which can afford to pay the license fees to handle margarine. Then after she finds it, she has to pay 10 cents per pound extra to get it already colored. Otherwise, she has to take it home uncolored, and then undergo the unnecessary inconvenience of coloring her margarine herself. And no matter how careful she is, some of the margarine sticks to the container and is lost. If one added up all of the margarine that is lost in this manner, I imagine it would total thousands of pounds, because 93 percent of all margarine is consumed at home. The nutritive quality of margarine is unquestioned. In some respects, according to scientists, it is even superior to butter. For example, some scientists say that its vitamin A content is more consistent than that of butter, because the standard required amount is artificially added, while butter's vitamin A content varies with the seasons. And the presumption held by a few that margarine may be sold as butter, if the color ban is removed, is not valid, since the labeling provisions are adequately covered in H. R. 2023. The bill also guards against misrepresentation of margarine in cafeterias and other eating places. As I understand it, all public eating places would be required to display a notice saying that the business serves margarine. As we see it, then, there is no good reason not to repeal all antimargarine laws and restrictions, while on the other hand, in the interest of consumers, farmers, and small merchants, the laws should be repealed. Therefore, we prayerfully urge this committee to adopt H. R. 2023 which will relieve the people of the undue burden implicit in antimargarine laws and regulations. The CHAIRMAN. The following statements are submitted for the record from representatives who were unable to appear in person, but wanted to be recorded as being in favor of the House-passed version of H. R. 2023. (The statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF MILDRED GUTWILLIG, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SETTLEMENTS The position of the National Federation of Settlements with regard to repeal of Federal taxes and restrictions on margarine is already a matter of record with Congress. In March 1948, Mrs. E. G. Chamberlain appeared before the House Committee on Agriculture with a complete statement of our reasons for urging that the Eightieth Congress remove this Federal law which, in our opinion, is harmful to the welfare of the great majority of our people, from the nutritional as well as economic standpoint. Again, in March 1949, this federation filed a statement with the same committee in the House of Representatives reiterating its position and emphasizing its desire for the elimination of any ban or restriction on the sale of artificially yellow-colored margarine. It is not our intention at this time to repeat again that which is already a matter of public record and readily available to this committee. Instead we wish to state: First, that we remain firm in our conviction that all antimargarine laws should be repealed; second, that we thoroughly approve and are completely satisfied with H. R. 2023 as it was passed by the House of Representatives; and third, that we urge the Senate Committee on Finance to report this bill as it reads today. We are aware that while this bill bears the number of the former Granger bill, it was so amended on the floor of the House that it is now essentially the same as H. R. 3, introduced by Congressman Poage, whose bill the federation strongly favored. We are further aware that the controversy was virtually narrowed down to the merits of H. R. 2023 as it now stands versus those of the original Granger bill. In considering the provisions of each, we find that both bills would repeal all taxes and license fees. Well and good. Both bills would permit the manufacture of yellow margarine. Both bills would permit intrastate commerce in yellow margarine. But-and here is where the joker lies-the original Granger bill would prohibit interstate trade in yellow margarine. Thus it would deny to the consumer the protection now afforded by the pure food and drug law. Those who favor the prohibition of interstate commerce in yellow margarine cannot possibly maintain that they have the interest of the consumer at heart when, by this provision, they would take away from him all protection by the Food and Drug Administration. It is clear that the dairy interests would eliminate yellow margarine altogether if it were possible, consumer demand to the contrary notwithstanding. The fact that they would complicate and cloud the issue by erecting interstate trade barriers should not go uncontested as unjust, unsound, and contrary to consumer interests. The National Federation of Settlements is not directly concerned with the restaurant provisions of either bill, since few of the families using our facilities can afford to patronize restaurants. On principle, however, we believe that the provisions contained in the Poage bill or those of H. R. 2023, as it was referred to the Senate by the House, furnish adequate protection and safeguards to consumers in public eating places. Action of the delegate body of the National Federation of Settlements in April 1948, was reaffirmed by the board of directors at a meeting in Washington on February 5 and 6, 1949, as follows: "The removal of discriminatory taxes in oleomargarine is in accord with the President's program to bring down the cost of essential foods and is long overdue. We urge the immediate passage of legislation to this effect, with the elimination further of any ban or burdensome restrictions on the sale of artificially colored oleomargarine." Accordingly, we respectfully urge the members of the Senate Finance Committee to report out favorably H. R. 2023 as it was refrered by the House of Representatives, without amendments and without delay. DAIRY EMPLOYEES, PLANT AND CLERICAL LOCAL UNION No. 93, Senator WALTER F. GEORGE, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE SIR: By unanimous action our members urgently request that you support amended House bill 2023. We believe this bill to be fair, and I hope that you will see fit to support it as a member of the Senate Finance Committee. Respectfully yours, MARK S. WHITING, CICERO, ILL., April 8, 1949. Hon. WALTER F. GEORGE, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building: Understand your committee will soon hold hearings on H. R. 2023 oleomargarine tax-repeal bill. Would like to testify, but my traveling commitments prevent this. I appeared before your committee last year on this same subject and respectfully refer committee to my testimony which appears beginning on page 101 of printed record. I want to assure your committee that everything I said last year is just as applicable now. During past year there have been some further experiments completed also proving margarine is a fine wholesome nutritious food. As a scientist vitally interested in proper feeding of our people, urge committee favorably report bill. Yellow color of oleomargarine as in the case of butter important psychologically since our people are used to and prefer that color in spread for bread and mental satisfaction is an important factor in eating, digestion, and in nutrition. Please insert this telegram in record as my statement. A. J. CARLSON, THE YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO, Senator WALTER F. GEORGE, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Members of the health education and public affairs committees of the Young Women's Christian Association of Chicago are much pleased with the progress of H. R. 2023. The repeal of Federal margarine license fees and taxes and the strengthening of the safeguards against fraudulent serving of margarine in public eating places seem to us important measures in the interest of the con sumer. We hope that the Snate committee, after its careful study of the similar bill introduced the Eightieth Congress, will not feel the need of more extensive hearings before taking an affiirmative action on this measure. We are particularly concerned that weakening amendments, considered by the House of Representatives and rejected, shall not be added to the bill in the Senate. Very sincerely yours, Mrs. L. E. MCCLOY, Chairman, Health Education Committee. STATEMENT OF Mrs. Mary MCLEOD BETHune, Founder-President, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NEGRO WOMEN Our organization, the National Council of Negro Women-with 25 national organizations, 85 chapters and 850,000 members-has a very real and direct interest in the repeal of Federal antimargarine laws. The reasons are obvious. Unfortunately, Negroes, generally speaking, are among the low-income groups in this country. Margarine is a good food. Nutritionally speaking, it is as good as butter and is much cheaper. Federal and State antimargarine laws have increased the cost of margarine and, in many instances, have made this product unavailable to consumers in the low-income groups. Testimony at hearings during the Eightieth Congress indicated that only about half the retail grocery stores in the United States sell margarine. This situation works a grave hardship on many white and colored families all over the country. We submit that no legislation should be permitted which, for no good reason, deprices consumers of a nutritious and cheap food, or increases its cost. The Federal tax of 10 cents a pound on yellow margarine and State taxes and restrictions upon the sale of yellow margarine force most families, who wish to serve margarine yellow, as most do, to spend extra time in mixing color into margarine, and furthermore, margarine is wasted in the process. We oppose vigorously any proposal that a ban be placed by this committee on the manufacture and sale of yellow margarine. It would perpetuate the hardship referred to above. There is no danger that stores will sell margarine as butter if antimargarine legislation is repealed. There is no danger of such deception now. Each separate package and stick of margarine is labeled "Oleomargarine." There are other legal labeling requirements. The penalties for violation of these requirements are so severe that even the butter interests admit there is little danger of fraud in this field. The labeling requirements would not be changed by repeal of Federal antimargarine legislation. More than 90 percent of all margarine sold goes from the stores direct to the householder. Because it is claimed by an interested group that some small quantity of margarine might be sold in public eating places as butter, why force the housewife to continue the burdensome and wasteful process of coloring margarine? Why not get at this situation, as is proposed in the Poage bill, H. R. 2023, the other repeal bills pending before your committee, by legislation which make the serving of margarine as butter in public eating places a Federal offense? The Federal antimargarine laws not only work a hardship on Negro consumers, as well as other consumers, but they also do great injury to the white and colored farmers who produce cotton and soybeans. Margarine is made primarily from cottonseed and soybean oil. The legal penalties inflicted upon margarine have lessened the use of the oils referred to, have lowered the price of cottonseed and soybean oils and thereby have reduced the already low income of many small white and colored farmers. Many sharecroppers have only the cottonseed left after paying the expenses of making their cotton crop. As you know, Negro sharecroppers make up more than 60 percent of all croppers in the South. Anything which lessens the value of cottonseed hits directly at the Negro cotton producer, especially tenants and sharecroppers who need every penny they can get to exist. As an organization we are opposed to unjustified and discriminatory legislation of every kind, whether its basis is race, class, or economic. We urge this committee, therefore, to approve H. R. 2023 which would remove the worst aspects of Federal legislation aimed at margarine. We urge the committee not to substitute further legal discrimination in its stead. We think that butter and margarine each should be sold on its own merits and that the consumers of America should be allowed to make their choice of each product in a free and competitive market. STATEMENT OF H. CORINNE LOWRY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL AssoCIATION OF COLORED WOMEN, INC. The 53,000 members of the National Association of Colored Women strongly urge the Finance Committee of the Senate to repeal Federal antimargarine legislation. We also strongly urge this committee to reject any proposals to limit the manufacture, distribution, and sale of yellow margarine. The colored people of this country have a direct and vital interest in repeal of the Federal antimargarine laws: First, these laws discriminate against all low-income consumers; a large number of our people fall into that category. Second, these laws discriminate against white and colored cotton farmers; some 500,000, or 80 percent of all colored farmers grow cotton. The discrimination against consumers is apparent to anyone familiar with the effects of the Federal and State antimargarine laws. The Federal legislation levies a 10 cents a pound tax on yellow margarine. As a result, housewives over the country are forced to the burdensome and onerous task of mixing color into margarine. The overwhelming majority of families prefer their table spread yellow, whether it is butter or margarine. This is a matter of food habits and there is no question that a pleasing color in food adds to its palatability. Butter freely uses yellow coloring to make the product more pleasing to consumers. Why does it seek to deny the same privilege to margarine? The excuse is given that, otherwise, some margarine might be sold as butter. This excuse is without validity in the case of more than 90 percent of all margarine sold. There is no danger that margarine will be sold as butter to householders, who consume more than 90 percent of all margarine sold. The labeling laws for margarine, which would not be changed by repeal, are very strict and the penalties for violation severe. If Each separate package and stick of margarine must be labeled as such. artificial coloring is used that fact must be on the label, a requirement from which butter, by law, is exempted. We can see no justification whatever for legislation which would force the housewife to continue henceforth the disagreeable and wasteful process of mixing color into margarine. This is what the proposed ban on the manufacture and sale of yellow margarine would do. Let us emphasize once more: There is no danger whatever that the housewife will be sold margarine as butter. Why penalize her because there may be danger that margarine may occasionally be sold as butter in public eating places? Why not get at this matter directly as is proposed in H. R. 2023 and other bills pending before this committee? H. R. 2023, for example, would make the serving of margarine as butter in a public eating place a Federal offense. Furthermore, each separate serving of 89343-49- -17 |